WING POINT CUP02-19-99-1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 1
On two extensive nights of testimony, the Applicant, Appellant, and citizens of
Bainbridge Island spoke passionately about Wing Point's proposal to operate a practice
driving range at this proposed location. The great weight of the testimony was that
the Wing Point Golf & Country Club is a "good neighbor" that has taken its
environmental stewardship responsibilities seriously. Environmental awards and
service to the Bainbridge Island High School Golf Teams were two examples of the
demonstrated determination of Wing Point to serve as a valued community asset. This
Hearing Examiner found no reason to believe that Wing Point's record of environmental
commitment and stewardship would not continue in the future.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As set forth herein, the Hearing Examiner DENIES the Conditional Use Permit
application, and DENIES the SEPA appeal.
A timely appeal was filed to the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
issued by the Responsible Official. This appeal was heard at the public hearings on the
application.
The Wing Point Golf & Country Club seeks to operate a practice driving range
on property located 200 feet west of Azalea Avenue on the north side of Wing
Point Way NE. Construction would consist of clearing and grading an area roughly
130 feet wide and 700 feet long. Protective netting hung on poles between 40-80
feet high and spaced every 50 feet will surround the driving range. The property
has a zoning destination of R-2.9, Residential - 2.9 units per acre. If allowed within
this zone, land use approvals required for this application include a Conditional Use
Permit.
INTRODUCTION
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION
SEPA APPEAL BY AZALEA
AVENUE HOMEOWNERS AGAINST
DRIVING RANGE.
NO. CUP 02-19-99-1
RE: WING POINT GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUB DRIVING RANGE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Richard B. Shattuck, Hearing Examiner Pro-Tern
DEilY. OF PLANN1NG lit
GOiUMUNITY DEVELOP~~H]T
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
MAR 0 : 2000
, 1'.' IX,~ ~f':.-L .!
r!~ q;' (!.,:::.tL;uc./
CITY OF
BAINSf;;CG': ISLAND
~.
~
'I. J'
~ CITY OF
BAI~18r;:OG': ISLAND
MAR 0:: 2000
.~ DEPT. OF PLANNiNG \it
liOMMUNITY DEVELOP.iJlH1T
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
Richard B. Shattuck, Hearing Examiner Pro-Tem
RE: WING POINT GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUB DRIVING RANGE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. CUP 02-19-99-1
SEPA APPEAL BY AZALEA
AVENUE HOMEOWNERS AGAINST
DRIVING RANGE.
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The Wing Point Golf & Country Club seeks to operate a practice driving range
on property located 200 feet west of Azalea Avenue on the north side of Wing
Point Way NE. Construction would consist of clearing and grading an area roughly
130 feet wide and 700 feet long. Protective netting hung on poles between 40-80
feet high and spaced every 50 feet will surround the driving range. The property
has a zoning destination of R-2.9, Residential - 2.9 units per acre. If allowed within
this zone, land use approvals required for this application include a Conditional Use
Permit.
A timely appeal was filed to the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
issued by the Responsible Official. This appeal was heard at the public hearings on the
application.
As set forth herein, the Hearing Examiner DENIES the Conditional Use Permit
application, and DENIES the SEPA appeal.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On two extensive nights of testimony, the Applicant, Appellant, and citizens of
Bainbridge Island spoke passionately about Wing Point's proposal to operate a practice
driving range at this proposed location. The great weight of the testimony was that
the Wing Point Golf & Country Club is a "good neighbor" that has taken its
environmental stewardship responsibilities seriously. Environmental awards and
service to the Bainbridge Island High School Golf Teams were two examples of the
demonstrated determination of Wing Point to serve as a valued community asset. This
Hearing Examiner found no reason to believe that Wing Point's record of environmental
commitment and stewardship would not continue in the future.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 1
I,
,
"
While this record of stewardship was relevant to the Hearing Examiner's
decision, approval of a Conditional Use Permit must be based on the specific standards
set forth in the Bainbridge Island Zoning Code, BIMC 18.108.040. The Code requires
that a conditional use not be materially detrimental to uses of property in the
immediate vicinity. The golf ball trajectory analysis completed by the Applicant
establishes a 50-foot difference between the protective net height and the likely height
of errant golf balls. This exposes property owners along the driving range to a
significant likelihood of being subject to damage or injury from golf balls leaving the
driving range. Further, a required traffic report and a necessary vegetation
management permit were not included with the application. This application does not
meet the decision criteria set forth in the Code, and accordingly must be denied.
Issuance of the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was not
clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the SEPA appeal is denied.
BASIS FOR REVIEW
The authority of the Office of the Hearing Examiner to review and issue
decisions on applications such as this one is derived from the Code of the City of
Bainbridge Island, BIMC 2.16 and BIMC 18.108.
RECORD FOR REVIEW
Hearings were conducted on February 7, 2000, and February 22, 2000.
Testimony was received from the Applicant, the SEPA Appellant, City Staff and a
broad range of the Bainbridge Island community. This testimony was made part of
video and audio tape recordings, which hereby are part of this record. A site
inspection was conducted by the Hearing Examiner. Exhibits were received and
admitted into the record. These exhibits have been listed in the compilation
attached hereto as Exhibit A. The record was closed after the hearing on February
22, 2000.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
LAND USE: An application for a Conditional Use Permit was filed on
February 19, 1999.
SEPA: Pursuant to WAC 197-11-340, a Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance was issued by the Responsible Official on June 23, 1999. A
timely appeal to the MDNS was taken by the Azalea Avenue Homeowners Against
Driving Range on July 14, 1999.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 2
, '
ORAL TESTIMONY
The public hearing was opened on February 7, 2000. After the procedures for
the public hearing were explained, testimony was accepted. All testimony was taken
under oath. A verbatim recording was made and a record was made of the names and
addresses off all witnesses. The tape and witness list is retained by the Office of the
Hearing Examiner.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
1. Chapter 18. 108 Conditional Use.
a. Section 18.108.020IC) Applicable Procedure - Administrative Conditional
Use.
An administrative conditional use process may be used for minor projects
as determined by the director. An administrative conditional use process
shall follow the review procedures set forth in BIMC 2.16.095.
Regular Conditional Use. All other conditional use applications shall be
processed using the procedures set forth in BIMC 2.16.100, hearing
examiner decision procedures.
b. Section 18.108.040. Decision Criteria
1. A conditional use may be approved or approved with modifications if:
A. The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design,
character and appearance with the existing or intended
character and quality of development in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property and with the physical
characteristics of the subject property.
B. The conditional use will be served by adequate public
facilities including roads, water, fire protection, sewage
disposal facilities, and storm water drainage facilities.
C. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses
or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
D. The conditional use is in accord with the comprehensive plan.
E. The conditional use complies with all other provisions of this
code.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 3
.'
F. The conditional use will not adversely affect the area or alter
the area's predominantly residential nature; and
G. All necessary measures have been taken to eliminate the
impacts that the proposed use may have on the surrounding
area.
II. A conditional use permit may be approved with conditions. If no
reasonable conditions can be imposed that ensure the application
meets the decision criteria of this chapter, then the application
shall be denied.
iii. A. Educational, cultural, governmental, religious or health care
facilities in residential zones must be processed as regular
. conditional use permits and meet the following criteria, in
addition to those listed above:
a. Applicants are required to submit a traffic report,
showing the effects on level of service on affected
roads. Proposed mitigations for degradation of the
LOS must be submitted as part of the application.
b. All sites must front on roads classified as Residential
Suburban or above on the Bainbridge Island
Functional Road Classification Map.
c. Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC
16.16.020 and 16.15.040IA).
d. The appropriate approvals of sewer and water supply
must be submitted at the time of application.
e. A fencing plan or alternative methods to protect the
public health, safety and welfare must be submitted
at the time of application.
f. The applicant shall provide perimeter buffers of
vegetation either retaining existing or planting a new
one in compliance with BIMC 18.85.070.D.4 (this
only applies to residential districts outside Winslow).
g. These conditional uses are limited in lot coverage to
only 50 percent of the allowable lot coverage in the
zone in which they are located.
h. Vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access and site
circulation must be submitted at the time of
application and approved by the city. The city
engineer may modify the requirements of BIMC
18.81.020.D and allow alternate driveway and
parking area surfaces; provided, that the allowed
surface(s) meets city requirements for handling
surface water and pollutants.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 4
" I'
B. All of the above facilities which have attendees and
employees numbering fewer than 50 or an assembly seating
area of less than 50 may have any or all the above
requirements waived by the director, except those required
elsewhere in the city code.
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
The following goals and policies apply to the proposed conditional use
permit:
1. General Land Use (LU) Goal 1.
Ensure a development pattern that is true to the vision for Bainbridge Island
by reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling
development.
a. LU 1.1 Land use designations should reflect the priority of Bainbridge
Island to remain primarily residential, with non-residential development
outside of the Winslow area concentrated in the service centers and at the
designated light manufacturing areas.
b. LU 1.2 Winslow is the heart of Bainbridge Island. Higher intensity
residential and commercial development, and human activity is encouraged
within Winslow's central core to create a vibrant city center; place growth
where infrastructure exists; reduce reliance on the automobile; provide
opportunities for affordable housing; and absorb growth that would
otherwise be scattered in outlying areas.
2. Semi-Urban Residential District (W) GOAL 10.
The Semi-Urban Residential District is intended to provide for vital residential
neighborhoods in a semi-urban setting.
a. W 10.1 The Semi-Urban Residential District is located in areas that are
suitable to provide a transition from urban uses to the less, intensely
developed areas of the Island.
3. Environment (EN) GOAL 1.
Preserve and enhance Bainbridge Island's natural systems, natural beauty, and
environmental quality.
a. EN 1. 1 Land use decisions should not be made at the expense of the
Island's natural environment.
b. EN 1.2 Properties adjoining or adjacent to critical areas must be developed
in observance of the following principles:
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 5
. '
. A void the impact, if possible.
. Minimize or limit the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology to avoid or reduce
impacts.
. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
. Rectify by repair, rehabilitation, or restoration of the affected
environment.
. Compensate for unavoidable impacts by replacing, enhancing or
providing substitute resources or environments.
. Reduce the potential for personal injury, loss of life, or property
damage due to flooding, erosion, landslides, seismic events, or soil
subsidence.
. Protect against publicly financed expenditures due to the misuse of
critical areas which cause:
1) Unnecessary maintenance and replacement of public
facilities
2) Public funding of mitigation for avoidable impacts
3) Public emergencies that were avoidable
4) Degradation of the natural environment
4. Fish and Wildlife Policies(FW) GOAL 3
Protect and enhance wildlife and natural ecosystems on Bainbridge Island.
a. FW 1.1 The protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat shall be an
integral component of the land use planning process. Land uses and
developments that are incompatible with wildlife habitat and other critical
areas should be prohibited.
S. Aauatic Resources (AQ) GOAL
Preserve and protect the Island's remaining aquatic resources' functions and
values.
a. AQ 1.1 Achieve no overall net loss of the City's remaining, regulated,
aquatic resources.
b. AQ 1.2 Development shall not be approved in regulated wetlands,
streams, or buffer areas, unless a property owner would be denied all
reasonable economic use of property.
c. AQ 1.3 Require that vegetated buffers be maintained between proposed
development and the aquatic resource in order to protect the functional
values of such systems.
d. AQ 1.4 Require that buffers be retained in their natural condition wherever
possible, while allowing for appropriate maintenance. Where buffer
disturbance has occurred, require revegetation with native species to
restore the buffers' protective values.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 6
"
e. AO 1.5 Ensure that development activities are conducted so that aquatic
systems and natural drainage systems are maintained and water quality is
protected.
f. AO 1.6 Prior to any clearing, grading, or construction on a site, all
wetlands, streams, and buffer areas should be specifically identified and
accurately located in the field in order to protect these areas during
development.
g. AO 1.8 Discourage herbicides and pesticide use in wetlands, streams and
buffer areas, and in the areas that drain into them.
h. AO 1.15 Maintain the Island's streams and creeks in their natural state
wherever feasible through:
. Preservation of their courses, their banks, and the vegetation next to
them
. Restoration of areas that have already been degraded
. Protection of areas that have not been disturbed
6. Geoloqicallv Hazardous Areas(GHl GOAL 1
Protect landslide hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, and steep slopes from the
impacts of use and development.
a. GH 1.1 Land uses on landslide hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, and
steep slopes should be avoided. If not possible to avoid, then land use
should be designed to prevent damage to persons or property, and
environmental degradation, and to preserve and enhance existing
vegetation to the maximum extent possible.
7. Atmospheric Conditions(ATl GOAL 1
Protect and promote clean air and minimize individual and cumulative noise
impacts.
a. AT 1.1 Maintain high air quality standards through efficient land use
patterns and transportation policies.
b. AT 1.3 Develop alternatives to burning vegetation and trees removed
during site preparation.
3. Other Land Use Code Requirements
1. Chapter 16.20.080 Geologically hazardous areas.
a. Section 16.20.80(Al. General. Geologically hazardous areas include
erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, and seismic hazard areas.
b. Section 16.20.80(Bl. Classification. Geologically hazardous areas shall
be classified based upon landslide history and the presence of unstable
soils, steepness of slopes, erosion potential and seismic hazards. Areas
in this category are a potential threat to public health, safety and welfare
when construction or incompatible uses are allowed. Some potential risk
due to construction in geologically hazardous areas can be reduced
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 7
through structural engineering design. Construction in geologically
hazardous areas should be avoided when the potential risk to public
health and safety cannot be reduced to a level comparable to the risk if
the site were stable. Classification and rating shall be based upon the
risk to the environment and to development in geologically hazardous
areas.
c. Section 16.20.80IC). Standards. 2. Development on slopes with
landslide and/or erosion hazards shall comply with the following
requirements regarding erosion control, buffers, development location,
development design, and landscaping.
\. Erosion Control. An erosion control plan shall be submitted to the
director for approval prior to any clearing, grading, construction or
other development. In addition, clearing, grading or filling of sloped
areas containing landslide or erosion hazard areas shall be limited to
the period between April 1 st and October 1 st, unless the applicant
provides an erosion control plan that specifically identifies methods of
erosion control for wet-weather conditions.
11. Disturbance and Alterations. All authorized clearing for roads,
utilities, etc. shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish
the engineering design.
iii. Buffers. A buffer of 50 feet shall be provided from the edge of all
slopes that are subject to landslide or erosion hazards. The edge of a
slope is defined as the top, toe and sides of the slope. The buffer may
be extended beyond these limits to mitigate hazards. The buffer may
be reduced if the applicant provides expert verification by a
geotechnical engineer, as specified by the city engineer, that
demonstrates that the proposal will not adversely impact the
geologically hazardous areas.
IV. Landscaping. The disturbed area of a development site shall be
landscaped to provide erosion control. Landscape plantings should
include trees and shrubs with a mix of shade, flowering, and
coniferous and broad-leaf evergreens that are either native to the
Puget Sound region or are valuable to western Washington birds as
described in the Department of Wildlife "Plants for Wildlife in Western
Washington" .
v. An indemnification or hold harmless agreement shall be required for all
projects in geologically hazardous areas. The form of the agreement
shall be approved by the city attorney and executed prior to beginning
any construction activities on the site.
2. Chapter 16.20.090 Wetlands and streams.
\. Buffer Zone Widths. A buffer shall be required for all regulated
wetlands and streams in accordance with the tables below. Any
wetland and/or stream created, restored or enhanced as compensation
for approved wetland and/or stream alterations shall also include the
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 8
, '
required buffer for the wetland category or stream type. Wetland
buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in
the field. Stream buffers shall be measured from the top of the bank.
(See Figure A.) In the case(s) of a stream in a ravine, the setback shall
be measured from the top of the ravine bank.
n. Stream Buffers. The following streamside buffers shall be maintained:
Stream Class Buffer Width Minimum Building Setback
Type 4 25 feet on each 15 feet beyond buffer
side of bank
3. Chapter 18.06.Definitions
a. "Cultural facility" is a place, such as a club, where people gather to further
intellectual and recreational interests and values with others who share
common opinions or interests.
4. Chapter 18.27 R-2.9, 2.9 UNITS PER ACRE ZONE (15,000 SQUARE FEET)
a. Section 18.27.030 Conditional uses.
1. Educational, cultural, governmental, religious or health care facilities.
b. Section 18.27.050 Lot coverage.
i. The maximum lot area covered by buildings shall not exceed 25 percent.
c. Section18.27.060 Yards.
1. Front yards, rear yards, and side yards facing streets shall be not less
than 25 feet, measured by the distance from the nearest lot lines,
planned rights-of-way, or road easements.
n. Side yards shall not be less than 1 5 feet in total sum with no side yard
less than five feet.
111. Rear yards shall be 15 feet.
d. Section 18.27.070 Height limitations.
i. Structure height is 25 feet, except that taller structures may be allowed
with the issuance of a conditional use permit; provided that (1) view
opportunities are not substantially reduced; (2) structures shall not be
permitted in required yards except as otherwise authorized by this code;
(3) each yard requirement shall be increased one-half foot for every foot
above the maximum structure height; (4) noncommercial, nonparabolic
antennae affixed to noncommercial communication towers that are 50
feet or less in height above grade shall not require conditional use
permits; (5) one flagpole 45 feet or less in height may be placed on a
parcel without requiring a conditional use permit; (6) utility poles 50 feet
or less in height shall not require conditional use permits; and (7) utility
structures existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 9
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 10
d. Section 18.85.090 Planting requirements
i. New plant materials shall include native species or nonnative species
that have adapted to the climatic conditions of the coastal region of
the Puget Sound Region.
11. New plant materials shall consist of drought resistant species, except
where site conditions within the required landscape areas assure
adequate moisture for growth.
111. Existing vegetation may be used to augment new planting to meet the
standards of this chapter.
Minimum Perimeter
Dimensions (Width)
. 1 5 Feet
. 1 5 Feet
Perimeter
Dimensions (Width)
. 25 Feet
. 25 Feet
Perimeter
Landsc80e Tvoe
. Full Screen
. Partial Screen
Abutting zoning
or land use
. Residential
.ROW/roads
ii. Areas Outside Winslow, NSCs, and LM Districts - Nonresidential Uses
C. Section 18.85.070 Perimeter landscape requirements
i. Intent. To provide a vegetated screen between uses or land use
districts, to screen parking areas and structures located adjacent to
public rights-of-way, and to allow visual access to pedestrian oriented
uses.
b. Section 18.85.060 Significant tree and tree stand requirements
i. Requirement. Preserve significant trees and tree stands located in
perimeter landscape areas and within a site's interior. Retain 30
percent of the significant tree canopy on the site(which may include
the perimeter landscape areas, critical areas and critical area buffers).
6. Chapter 18.85 Landscape Requirements:
a. Section 18.85.030 Applicability
i. Projects subject to the conditional use permit process may be required
to exceed the requirements of this chapter.
5. Chapter 18.81 Parking and Access Requirements:
a. Section 18.81.030(M) Spaces Requirements
i. For other educational, governmental, health care and recreational
facilities not covered in subsections K(schools) and L (churches) of this
section the number of spaces must be adequate to accommodate the
peak shift as determined by the director.
subsection that are taller than 50 feet shall not be considered
nonconforming structures and may be replaced without a conditional use
permit; provided, that the structure is not larger or taller than the original
structure and is not moved more than 20 feet from its original location.
.'
,.
IV. Performance assurance is required to assure the city that the
landscape, required by this section, is properly installed, will become
established and be adequately maintained. The required landscape
shall be installed prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of
occupancy for the project. The Washington landscape architect,
Washington certified nursery professional or Washington certified
landscaper shall submit a landscaping declaration to the department to
verify installation in accordance with the approved plans.
v. Maintenance Assurance: The property owner shall replace any
unhealthy or dead plant materials in conformance with the approved
planting plan. A maintenance assurance device shall be required for a
period of three years after acceptance by the city of the new planting
or transplanting of vegetation to insure proper installation,
establishment, and maintenance. The maintenance assurance device
amount shall not be less than 20 percent of the cost of replacing
materials covered by the assurance device.
7. Chapter 16.22 Vegetation Management Permit:
a. Section 16.22.030 Applicability
i. Unless exempted under BIMC 16.22.040, a vegetation management
permit is required for harvesting of trees and/or removal of
vegetation in the following areas: 1. Undeveloped properties or
developed properties which can be further subdivided, including
those properties under two acres in size which are exempt under a
Class I forest practice permit.
PROPOSED CONDITIONS ON APPROVAL
The Planning Staff proposed the following conditions associated with any
project approval:
SEPA Conditions:
1 a. Prior to any clearing, or grading, a grading/building permit shall be obtained
from the City. The limits of clearing and grading shall be clearly marked and
inspected by a City Planner prior to permit issuance.
1 b. Prior to any clearing or grading or issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
obtain a Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or Department of Natural Resources
Class IV general Forest Practices Act permit for timber removal from the site.
1 c. Access to the driving range shall only be allowed from the club house off
Cherry Avenue, except that a temporary construction entrance from Wing Point
Way is permitted. Prior to grading/building permit issuance a re-vegetation plan
shall be submitted for the restoration of the temporary construction entrance.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 11
."
, '
1 d. A special erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved by the City
Engineer prior to any clearing and grading proposed outside of the dry season,
April 1 to October 1. The plan shall specifically identify methods of erosion
control for wet weather conditions.
1 e. Prior to any clearing grading or building activities, the applicant shall submit a
Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to the City Engineer for
review and approval.
1f. A final stormwater drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
grading/building permit issuance.
1 g. The use of fertilizers and pesticides shall be applied using Best
Practices and Integrated Pest Management techniques as
Environmental Management Programs at Wing Point.
Management
outlined in
1 h. The cleared area shall be planted or seeded as soon as possible to reduce
erosion potential.
1 i. The construction staging areas shall be outside critical areas and their buffers,
specifically the 25 foot buffer from the top of the stream bank.
1j. Any trees within the stream buffer or landscaping area that die due to wind
throw, or other natural causes shall be replaced at a 3 to 1 ratio, 3 trees of like
kind shall be replanted for every tree lost. Replanting shall be in accordance with
BIMC 18.85. Unauthorized removal of vegetation shall be replanted in
accordance with BIMC 18.85.
1 k. To mitigate impacts on air quality during earth moving activities, contractors
shall conform to Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Regulations which
insure that reasonable precautions are taken to avoid dust emissions. (Section
16.08.040, BIMC)
11. To mitigate impacts on air quality, cleared vegetation must be removed from the
site and processed by chipper or some other method of disposal that does not
require burning.
1 m. No outdoor lighting will be allowed on the driving range, except for security
lights on the covered tee building. Lights shall be hooded and shielded so that
the bulb is not visible from adjacent properties during use.
1 n. The proposed facility (maintenance equipment) shall comply with all applicable
State noise standards contained in Washington Administrative Code Chapter
173-60. Mowing of the practice area shall not occur prior to 7:00 a.m. nor later
than 10:00 p.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 12
10. In order to mitigate for the aesthetic impact, the support poles are to be painted
a natural brown color and the "invisible netting" shall be on the inside of the
poles or the poles shall be padded so the poles do not sound if struck by golf
balls. If padded the pads shall also be natural brown in color.
1 p. To mitigate the possible impact on wildlife the netting shall be keep tight to
keep wildlife from being entangled, and the applicant shall participate in an Eagle
Management Plan.
1 q. The applicant shall obtain a Vegetation Management Permit under BIMC 16.22
prior to removing vegetation or harvesting trees, and all conditions of the
Vegetation Management Permit shall be conditions of approval for the
Conditional Use Permit.
Non-SEPA Conditions:
1. The number of tee boxes shall be limited to 10 or less.
2. The protective netting shall not exceed the net heights submitted on the revised
site plan received December 27, 1999. All site improvements, including the
protective netting and poles, shall be placed in accordance with the revised site
plan, but in no case shall intrude into the stream buffer or the required landscaping
area.
3. Access is not permitted from Azalea Avenue, if deemed necessary by the City
the golf course shall erect signs enforcing this condition in addition to the
placement of a fence.
4. The use of the practice facility shall be limited to the Club Members and their
Guests. Any Junior Golf program and/or persons participating in special community
events and tournaments shall also be permitted to use the facility under direct
supervision of the Club to insure proper usage of the facility.
5. A 25-foot full screen landscape buffer shall be established adjacent to any
residentially zoned property in accordance with BIMC 18.85. The landscape buffer
shall be extended to 30 feet where the net height increases to 75 feet. The 30
foot landscape buffer shall contain one additional tree for each 20 feet of perimeter.
The 300 feet between Wing Point Road and the practice facility shall be left in
native vegetation, except for the installation of stormwater drainage facilities.
6. Because of the lack of significant trees along the west side of the property, the
plantings to meet the buffer shall be 8 to 10 feet high at the time of planting.
7. All required landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to any use of the
practice facility or a performance device shall be provided to the City in accordance
with BIMC Chapter 18.85.
8. A maintenance assurance device shall be provided to the City prior to any use of
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 13
. '
the facility or at the same time as a performance assurance in accordance with
BIMC 18.85.
9. An Indemnification agreement shall be signed and submitted to the City prior to
building permit issuance in conformance with BIMC 16.20.080.
10. Engineered drawings addressing the footings for the poles and calculating the
wind load on the poles and nets shall be submitted for review at the time of
building permit submittal. The City Engineer shall review the drawings and
calculations and may require further geotechnical analysis for the proposed
footings.
In addition, the Applicant has agreed to accept a condition that would require it
to exceed all Bainbridge Island environmental and health requirements in operating the
driving range.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Site Characteristics
1. AREA AND DIMENSIONS
a. Tax Lot Number: 262502-1-005-2008.
b. Assessor's Record Information
Owner of record: Wing Point Golf & Country Club
Lot size: 3.9 acres.
Land use:
Undeveloped.
2. TERRAIN
a. The terrain slopes to the south at 5-6 percent.
b. Expert testimony was taken at the public hearing and in the record on the
off-site stream to the east of the subject property. This testimony
included the testimony of Mr. Stephan Kalinowski (Exhibit 153/154), the
testimony of Mr. Webster Pierce (Exhibit 40), and the public testimony of
Mr. Wayne Daley (Exhibit 33), and Mr. Steve Morris (Exhibit 41).
Reviewing the testimony in light of BIMC 16.20, the Critical Areas
Ordinance, and a site visit the Hearing Examiner finds the stream to be
Class IV. The sides of the ravine contain slopes of 1 5-40 percent and
therefore are geologically hazardous areas.
c. Off-site wetlands exist both on the existing golf course and on the
property which is located south of the property across Wing Point Road.
The wetland ponds on the golf course feed the stream through a storm
water management system. The stream crosses Wing Point Road in a
culvert and eventually empties into the wetland on the South property.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 14
3. SOILS
Kapowsin gravelly loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes. (Soil Conservation Service,
Kitsap County).
4. SITE DEVELOPMENT
Undeveloped.
5. ACCESS
a. The applicant proposes a temporary construction entrance to be accessed
from Wing Point Way NE. The construction entrance is outside of the
stream buffer and will not require the removal of any significant trees.
b. Access to the practice facility for users and all maintenance activities will
be from the existing golf course and clubhouse on Cherry Avenue.
6. PUBLIC UTILITIES
The proposal does not require public utilities.
7. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Police: Bainbridge Island Police Department.
b. Fire: Kitsap County Fire District #23.
8. EXISTING USE
Undeveloped.
g. EXISTING ZONING
R-2.9, 2.9 units per acre.
10. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Semi-Urban Residential (SUR).
11. SURROUNDING USES
a. North: Existing Golf Course.
b. South: Wing Point Way/Residential.
c. East: Residential.
d. West: Residential/Golf Course.
12. SURROUNDING ZONING
R-2.9, 2.9 units per acre.
13. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS
Semi-Urban Residential (SUR).
B. Golf Course
1. Appellants presented some evidence that not all golf courses have
designated practice areas. The clear weight of the evidence from numerous
golf experts, however, was that a practice area is an integral part of a golf
course facility.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 15
, -
C. Golf Ball Trajectory and Netting
1. Wing Point Golf & Country Club had Tanner Consulting Group prepare a
trajectory plan for the proposed driving range. The plan assumes a nine
degree driver, a ninety percent compression golf ball and no wind.
2. The Applicant's golf ball trajectory analysis suggests that a tee shot will rise
to an elevation of 116 feet approximately 180 yards from the tee.
3. The elevation of the driving range at the 180 yard mark is approximately 20
feet below the tee box at this location.
4. The proposed net height at the 180 yard mark is 75 feet above ground level.
5. At the 180 yard mark of the driving range, the difference between the net
height and the projected golf ball trajectory is approximately 60 feet.
6. There is a significant likelihood that errant golf balls will escape the driving
range facility and impact neighboring properties at dangerous velocities.
7. Children play in the stream and on the property abutting the proposed driving
range. Neighbors to the west of the proposed driving range use their
backyard area for picnics and other outdoor activities.
8. Raising the height of the protective nets to the level necessary to ensure golf
balls would not leave the driving range would result in a significant increase
in setback requirements and result in substantially reduced view
opportunities above the vegetation buffer between the driving range and the
neighboring homes.
D. Buffers
1. Based upon the public testimony, the record and a site visit, the Hearing
Examiner finds that the top of the ravine has been located and marked by
City Staff in accordance with the provisions of BIMC 16.20.
2. The geotechnical report submitted by Myers Biodynamics, Exhibit 74,
establishes that the proposed project, with recommended conditions, would
not adversely impact the geologically hazardous area.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 16
~ . . .
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. This application is properly before the Hearing Examiner as required under
BIMC 18.108.020(Dl. Adequate legal notice was given of the Public
Hearings held on February 7, 2000 and February 22, 2000.
B. Wing Point Golf & Country Club is the legal owner of the parcel on which
the proposed driving range would be built.
C. The proposed use is a part of a cultural facility as defined by BIMC
18.06.
D. BIMC 18.108.040 sets forth the decision criteria for a Conditional Use
Permit approval. This application is subject to the additional criteria set
forth under BIMC 18.108.040(cl. Based on the findings of fact, the
information on file and obtained in a site visit, and testimony given at the
public hearing, the application does not adequately meet the decision
criteria.
1. BIMC18.108.040(1):
The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character
and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of the
development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and with
the physical characteristics of the subject property.
The immediate vicinity of the subject property is medium density single-family
residential, which provides a transition from the higher densities of Winslow to the
lower densitylrural areas of the Island. Many of the residences in the vicinity have rear
or side yards adjacent to the existing practice area and golf course fairways.
Under proposed conditions, the proposed driving range will provide full landscape
screening to augment the existing native vegetation. The proposed conditions
regarding poles being painted a natural brown color and the use of protective netting
that is difficult to see from a distance of 100 feet (field verified by the Hearing
Examiner) insure that, aesthetically, little difference will be noticed from the existing
developed properties in the vicinity.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 17
I .
The testimony received at the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner's site visit,
and record before the Hearing Examiner establish that the proposed net heights are at
the limit of what would allow harmonious appearance with the existing residential
uses. Higher nets of any significant measure will place the netting and pole support
structure above the natural vegetation buffer. If higher net heights are required to
protect surrounding property owners from errant golf balls, this driving range cannot
be reasonably conditioned to make it harmonious with the residential character of this
neighborhood.
The proposal is compatible with the environmental characteristics of the subject
property. More than 50 percent of the subject parcel is being maintained in native
vegetation, and the majority of the site will be free of any structures or buildings. The
subject property slopes to the south within the limits of the proposed clearing and
grading area off the drivi[.lg range.
2. BIMC 18.108.040(2):
The conditional use will be served by adequate public facilities
including roads, water, fire protection, sewage disposal facilities and
storm drainage facilities.
The proposed development, with proposed conditions, will be adequately served
by public facilities. A storm water drainage plan and facility has been designed by
Browne Engineering Inc. and approved by the City Engineer to control the storm water
runoff as a result of clearing, grading and the established driving range. The
conceptual storm water drainage plan contains both temporary erosion controls and
long term water quality and detention facilities. The project is served by an existing
private irrigation system.
3. BIMC 18.108.040(3):
The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses of
property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
The expert testimony of Mr. Gerald W. Pirkl, Mr. Doug Merryman and
associated analysis of trajectory data by the Appellant establish significant
questions as to whether the facility as designed would prevent the escape of golf
balls with dangerous trajectories from leaving the facility. The analysis by the
Azalea Homeowners Association and its experts establish that golf balls are likely
to carry above the designed netting.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 18
. I.
While Wing Point's expert, Mr. Tanner, provided great detail on the design
and safety characteristics built into the driving range, neither Mr. Tanner nor the
Applicant could represent that golf balls with dangerous velocities would not
escape from the driving range.
The Wing Point Golf & Country Club relies in part on the distance between
the driving range and the homes and developed yards of the Azalea Homeowners as
an additional safety buffer from the driving range. The testimony at public hearing,
however, was that the homeowners make use of all of their property, including the
area abutting the proposed driving range. Public testimony was received
establishing that children play in the area of the Class IV stream which runs a few
feet from the driving range. This Examiner cannot consider the ravine area a safety
zone between the Azalea Avenue homes and the driving range. Instead, this area
forms an integral part of. the residential use of these homes.
In reaching this conclusion, the Hearing Examiner does not ignore the
testimony of members of the public living along the existing golf course who
explained they have had no problems or concerns with letting their children play in
the backyards along the existing golf course, including the area along the first tee
where driving range practice now occurs without netting. The Hearing Examiner
finds there is distinction between such isolated driving range activity and a facility
dedicated to having numerous golfers striking buckets of golf balls on a regular and
continuous basis.
Finally, the Hearing Examiner has not ignored Wing Point's suggestion that if
the safety systems established for the facility do not work, additional safety
measures can be instituted or the City can withdraw the conditional use permit.
The possibility of later revocation of a conditional use permit does not make this
proposal presently less detrimental to the neighborhood.
4. BIMC 18.108.040(4):
The conditional use is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use has been reviewed for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Policies and is found to be consistent.
5. BIMC 18.108.040(5):
The conditional use complies with all other provisions of this Code.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 19
. l'
The applicant has not applied for a Vegetation Management Permit as
required under BIMC 16.22. Further, the applicant has not completed the traffic
study under BIMC 18.1 08.040(CH1) necessary to determine if the proposal meets
all parking and access requirements of BIMC 18.81.
6. BIMC 18.108.040(6):
The conditional use will not adversely effect the area or alter the
area's predominantly residential nature.
With the proposed conditions, the proposed project would not adversely affect
the area or alter the areas predominantly residential nature. Golf courses and their
associated facilities are usually constructed in residential neighborhoods. The proposal
contains one single-story 'building, poles that resemble many of the existing trees in the
landscaping buffer, netting that is difficult to see from 100 feet, and a mowed grass
area that resembles the golf course. The project, however, would adversely impact
the adjoining property owners as set forth in paragraph 3.
7. BIMC 18.108.040(7):
All necessary measures have been taken to eliminate the impacts the
proposed use may have on the surrounding area.
The proposed safety measures will not eliminate the impacts of the proposed
use on surrounding property owners. See analysis at paragraph 3.
8. Educational, cultural, governmental, religious or healthcare facilities in
residential zones must be processed as regular conditional use permits and meet the
following criteria, in addition to those listed in Conclusions of Law 1-7 above:
a) Applicants are required to submit a Traffic Report showing the
effects of Level of Service (LOS) on affected roads. Proposed mitigations for
degradation of the LOS may he submitted as apart of the application.
This proposed application does not include a required Traffic Report.
b) All sites must front on roads classified as Residential Suburban or
above on the Bainbridge Island Functional Road Classification Map.
This proposed site is to be served by Cherry Avenue, which has the required
Residential Suburban classification.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 20
,.. .
c) Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC 16.16.020 and
16. 16.040(A).
With the proposed conditions, this proposal would meet and comply with
applicable noise levels.
d) The appropriate approvals for sewer and water supply must be
submitted at the time of application.
Water will be supplied by an extension of the existing irrigation system and
no sewer approvals will be required.
e) A fencing plan or alternative methods to protect the public, safety
and welfare must he submitted at the time of application.
A net plan has been submitted but it is not adequate to protect the
surrounding properties from errant golf balls.
f) The applicant shall provide perimeter buffers of vegetation, either
retaining existing or planting a new one in compliance with BIMC
18.85.070(0)(4).
A landscape plan has been reviewed as a part of this project for compliance
with the standards of BIMC 18.85. Proposed conditions require additions to the
natural vegetation as well as a requirement for replacement of trees. The
recommended additions to the plan and other conditions of approval would bring
the project into full compliance with perimeter buffering standards.
g) These conditional uses are limited in lot coverage to only 50% of
allowable lot coverage in the zone in which they are located
The lot coverage in this proposal meets the requirements of the Code.
h) Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access and site circulation must
be submitted at the time of application and approved by the City The City
Engineer may modify the requirements of BIMC 18.81.020(D) and allow
alternative driveway and parking surfaces; provided, that the allowed
surfacers) meets the City's requirements for handling surface water and
pollutants.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 21
" I
The proposed temporary construction road and the requirement to service the
driving range by ferrying golfers from the Cherry Avenue clubhouse are appropriate
and are sized proportionally for the proposed use.
E. Other Land Use Code Reauirements:
1. Chapter 16.20.080 Geologically hazardous areas. With the proposed conditions,
the proposed driving range would meet the requirements of this chapter.
2. Chapter 16.20.090 Wetlands and streams. The stream would be adequately
protected by required buffers, stormwater facilities, and conditions regarding
temporary erosion controls, pesticide and fertilizer use.
3. Chapter 18.27 R-2.9, 2.9 UNITS PER ACRE ZONE (15,000 SQUARE FEET). The
proposed conditional use conforms to the R-2.9 zone with the poles and nets at
the proposed height. Increasing pole height, however, would extend the netting
and associated poles above the vegetation buffer, resulting in a substantial
reduction in view opportunities.
4. Chapter 18.81 Parking and Access Requirements: No access is allowed from
either Wing Point or Azalea Avenue, but the applicant has not completed the
traffic study required by BIMC 18.1 08.040IC)(1).
5. Chapter 18.85 Landscape Requirements: With the proposed conditions, the
proposal would meet the landscape requirements.
6. Chapter 16.22 Vegetation Management Permit: The applicant has not applied for
a Vegetation Management Permit.
F. SEPA
The Responsible Official for the City of Bainbridge Island issued a mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") for Wing Point's proposed conditional use
permit. The mitigation provided within the MONS included specific SEPA conditions. The
Responsible Official's issuance of the MDNS must be given substantial weight under both
the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code and under case law applicable to this matter. See
BIMC 16.04.070: Anderson v. Pierce Countv, 86 Wn.App. 290, 302, 936 P.2d 432 (1997).
The record of environmental factors considered by the City "demonstrate[s] that
environmental factors were considered in the matters sufficient to amount to a prima facie
compliance with the procedural requirements of SEPA, and the decision to issue an MDNS
was based on information sufficient to evaluate the proposal's environmental impact. Id.
Further, the mitigation measures proposed to mitigate impacts were reasonable and
capable of being accomplished. Id.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 22
lr f.
The record before the Hearing Examiner establishes the City's compliance with the
procedural requirements for issuing the MONS and careful consideration of environmental
impacts. Without limitation, this review included (1) seeking comment and reports from
agencies with jurisdiction or interest in the project; (2) site visits and critical review by City
Staff; (3) engagement of a private consulting biologist; (4) review of expert reports, including
soils and wetland studies; (5) consideration and review of neighborhood comments and
concerns; and (6) issuance of SEPA conditions specifically targeted at mitigating identified
environmental impacts. The conditions include requirements for managing chemicals,
erosion control, limits on hours of operation and lighting, traffic control, storm water
management, reduction of air quality impacts, protection of the off-site stream, and
protection of wildlife. The record provides a clear demonstration of careful environmental
review by the Responsible Official. The appellants have not established that the issuance
of the MONS was clearly erroneous, and the SEPA appeal is accordingly denied.
DECISION
Based upon the testimony at the Public Hearings, the documents and exhibits
admitted into the record, the site inspection conducted by the Hearing Examiner, and
the previously made Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby the Decision
of the Hearing Examiner that the Conditional Use Permit be DENIED, and the SEPA
appeal be DENIED.
-ce
DATED this 7 day of March, 2000.
~;'h' ~ B. s~
Hear ng Examiner Pro-Tem
City of Bainbridge Island
APPEAL
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is the final decision of the City unless
within twenty-one (21) days after issuance of the decision, the decision is appealed to
the City Council in accordance with the requirements of BIMC 2.16.140.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &
DECISION - 23
EXHmIT 'A'
Revised 3-5-00
r L/....."'.....~Jut...vu - n
I Chronological Listing 2/19 to 1
5/24/99
2 Notice of Application for Admin. CUP with Attach's 3/17/99 6
3 Notice of Mitigated Determination of Non significance 6/18/99 24
4. Memo to Machen from Lassoff with Appeal Request 7/14/99 4
5. Letter of Transmittal to Machen from Public Works 2/23/99 1
6. Corres. To Schilling, Wing Point Golf & Country 3/9/99 1
Club (WPGCC) from Gladstein
7. Corres. To Machen from Schilling WPGCC 3/30/99 1
8, Corres. To Machen from Knobloch 3/25/99 1
9 Corres. To Knobloch from Zahaba WPGCC 4/1/99 2
10 Corres. To Warren from Zahaba WPGCC 4/1/99 2 copies
11 Corres. To Schil1ing WPGCC from Machen 4/5/99 1
12 Corres. To McSherry & Ostling from Zahaba 4/9/99 2
WPGCC
13 Letter of Transmittal to WSDept.Fish & Wildlife 5/21/99 1
from Gladstein
14. Corres. To Schilling WPGCC from Machen 5/24/99 1
15, Corres. To Schilling WPGCC from Brown 5/25/99 16
Engineering with Attach's
16. Corres. To Machen from Schilling WPGCC 5/28/99 1
17. Corres. To Machen from Schilling, Wing Point Turf 6/1/99 I
Management Center (WPTMC).
18. Corres. To Schilling from Machen 6/2/99 1
#P
D
EXHmIT LIST
WING POINT GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
CUP02-19-99-1
,.; .,~-;.: '.~#,~~'~.~M
xhibit #
19, Environmental Management Programs at Wing Point 6/10/99 Rec'd 47 ds'
20. Corres. To Machen from Schilling WPTMC 6/14/99 5
21 Corres, To Machen from Schilling WPTMC 6/14/99 1
22 Corres. To Ament (Dept. Fish & Wildlife) 6/15/99 Rec'd 1
23 Corres. To Machen from Schilling 6/16/99 1
24, Corres, To Knobloch from Machen 6/21/99 1
25. Corres. To Warren from Meyers (Suquamish Tribe) 6/15/99 3
26. Corres. To Warren & Machen from Kalinowski 7/8/99 3
Dept. OfFish & Wildlife
27 Corres. To Machen from Weiss, WS Dept. Natural 7/7/99 i
Resources
28. Corres. To Machen from Schilling WPTMC 6/30/99 1
29 Corres. To Warren from Kalinowski, WS Dept. Fish 7/8/99 2
& Wildlife
30 Faxed Corres. to Machen from Hempelmann 7/13/99 2 ds
31. Corres. to Machen from Hempelmann 7/13/99 2 ds
32. Faxed Corres. To James from Hempelmann 7/26/99 2 ds
33 Corres. To James from Daley, Daley Design. 7/25/99 1 ds
34 Faxed Corres. To Morse from Hempelmann w/ Attach 7/27/99 2 ds
35. Receipt Form 8/6/99 1
36. Corres. To Schilling WPGCC from Machen 8/6/99 1
37 Corres. To Members WPGCC from Messrs. Zahaba, 8/5/99 2 ds
Cullen, Dinkley and Christoffersen.
38 Corres. To Warren from Dunkley WPGCC 8/18/99 1 ds
39 Meeting of9/13/99 Attendance Sheet 9/13/99 1
40. Corres. To Warren from Peirce, Adolfson 8/20/99 2 ds
Environmental Solutions.
'Double sided
Revised 3-5-00
EXHmIT 'A'
,
41. Memo To Machen from Morse 9/14/99 1 ds
42, Corres, To Warren from Kalinowski, WS Dept. Fish 8/30/99 2 ds
& Wildlife
43. Memo to Machen from Morse 9/14/99 1 ds
44, Corres, To Schilling from Machen 9/16/99 1
45. Corres. To Machen from Zahaba WPGCC 10/5/99 2 ds
46, Corres, To Warren from Pasley WPGCC 9/29/99 1
47, Practice Facility Report on Design Recommendations 10/14/99 8 each
WPGCC from Tanner Consulting Group 2 copies
48, Corres, To Machen from Zahaba 10/15/99 1
49. Receipt Form 10/21/99 1
50 Requests to Review Public Records 35 (14
ds)
51 Receipt Form 2/19/99 1
52 Site and Landscape Plan 2/19/99 Rec'd 1
53. Corres. To Azalea Avenue Homeowners from Cullen 2/16/99 5
WPGCC
54. Corres. To Schilling WPGCC from Wiltermood 1/20/99 19 (6 ds)
Associates, Inc. Re: Wetland Determination
55, Conditional Use Permit Application 2/19/99 13
56, Corres. To Schilling from Gladstein 2/23/99 1
57. Routing Slip 2/23/99 1
58. Corres. Both for and against Proposal 2 FILES
59, Plan: Site Plan/Landscape Management Plan 2/19/99 Rec'd 1
60 Plan: Drainage Plan 2/19/99 Rec'd 1
61. Order of Disqualification of Hearing Examiner 10/28/99 1
62 Application to use School Facilities 1-13-00 1
63 Public Hearing Notice Rec'd by Bainbridge Review 1-14-00 4
Revised 3-5-00
EXHmrr 'A'
,,;< .,,",
64 Public Hearing Notice faxed to Hemplemann 1-16-00 3
65 Affidavit of Delivery Public Hearing Notice 1-16-00 3
66 Fax to HEX Pro Tern (Shattuck) re: Public Hearing 1-17-00 3
Notice
67 Revised Site Plan 12-27-99 1
68 Wing Point Practice Facility Report 11-09-99 6
69 Corres. from Gladstein to Schilling (WPGCC) 3-9-99 1
70 Corres. to Schilling (WPGCC) from Machen 4-5-99 1
71 Corres. to Schilling from Machen 5-24-99 1
72 Corres. to Schilling from Machen 12-1-99 1
73 Corres to Machen from Zahaba (WPGCC) wi Attachs 10-5-99 4
74 Corres. to Brown Engineering from Messrs. Myers 5-21-99 6
and Kastens re: Slope Evaluation
75 Computer Generated Photos (before and after 6
construction)
76 Yeomalt Point Eagle Habitat 1
77 Top of Bank Figure 1
78 Revised Notice of Application for CUP 11-17-99 27
79 Affidavit of Posting (property) 1-21-00 1
80 Figures from Tanner Consulting Group re: ball 2
trajectories
81 Practice Facility Report with cover letter to Machen 11-11-99 7
from Tanner
82 Corres. from Zahaba to Machen re: Report 11-15_99 2
83 Corres. from Zahaba to Machen 11-18-99 1
84 Corres. from Machen to Schilling 12-1-99 1
85 Corres. from Schilling to Machen 12-23-99 2
86 Corres. to HEX Shattuck from Sawyer 1-21-00 5
Revised 3-5-00
EXHffilT 'A'
87 Corres. to Mayor Sutton from M & K Smith 1-18-00 1
88 Corres. to HEX Shattuck from Hemplemann 1-19-00 2
89 Corres. to HEX Shattuck from Knobloch et al 1-21-00 2
90 Corres. to HEX Shattuck from Knobloch et al 1-23-00 1
91 STAFF REPORT 1-24-00 23
92 Facsimile with attachs to HEX Shattuck from Sawyer 1-25-00 6
93 Affidavit of Mailing 1-21-00 24
94 Corres. from Hempelmann to Shattuck w/Fax sht 1-19-00 4
95 Transmittal of Exhibit List with Fax sheets 1-25-00 10
96 Corres. to all parties re Pre-Hearing Conference 1-27-00 8
97 Corres. to Mayor Sutton & Warren re Scheduling 1-26-00 5
98 Corres. to HEX from Joslyn 2-2-00 I
99 Corres. to Machen from Ament (WSDFW) 2-2-00 Ids
100 Corres, from Davison to Warren & Warren's 1-28-00 2
Response 2-2-00
101 Corres. to Warren & Machen from Smith 8-17-00 9
102 Notes to File with Attachments from K. James 2-4-00 17
103 Request to Review Public Records (Thomsen) 2-3-00 1
104 Corres. to Machen from Hempelmann 2-3-00 6
105 Corres. to Warren/HempelmannIKnoblochlEustis 2-3-00 3
from HEX Shattuck
106 Corres. to James from Smith 2-3-00 I
107 Corres. to HempelmannlKnoblochlEustislWarren 2-4-00 2
from HEX Shuttuck
108 Ariel Photographs Submitted 2-7-
00
109 Photographs - Practice Facilities Submitted 2-7-
00
Revised 3-5-00
EXHIBIT 'A'
, ~' , ,'.;;11~~,' ,"5;,,'!..:~~~
110 Corres. to Azalea Ave. Homeowners from Paul 2-16-99 2
Cullen (WPGCC)
III Cones, to McSherry & Ostling from Zahaba 4-9-00 2
112 Resume - Bill Schilling
113 Environmental Steward Award Notice (Schilling) 1
114 Award Letters 2-25-97 and
12-96
lIS Distances Submitted 2-7-
00
116 Visual Dynamics Photographs Submitted 2-7-
00
117 Photographic Display Boards (Before and After) Submitted 2-7- 2
00
118 Photographs (10th Fairway) Submitted 2-7-
00
119 Photographs (Poles and Netting) Submitted 2-7-
00
120 Photograph of Wing Point Development (large board) Submitted 2-7-
00
121 As Above Submitted 2-7-
00
122 Photograph of Examples of installed netting at Wing
Point
123 Fertilizer Application
124 Photographs (Comparibles) Submitted 2-7-
00
125 Photographs (Comparibles) Submitted 2-7-
00
126 Photographs (Non-Comparibles) Submitted 2-7-
00
127 Site PlanIPlat Map Azalea Ave. & Wing Point Dr. Submitted 2- 1
Large Board 22-00
Revised 3-5-00
EXHIBIT' A'
128 David Cass 1990 Short Plat 6/29/90 I
Sub: 2-22-00
129 Top of Bank for Building Setback (Attach. UlStaff Sub: 2-22-00 I
Report)
130 Video Survey of Driving Ranges in Seattle Area Sub: 2-22-00 I
13] Proposed Access Road entry 2-5-00 ]
Sub: 2-22-00
132 Video of Wildlife Istre am (encironmental impact) Sub: 2-22-00 1
133 Corres to Machen from Schilling re: Nets 6-] 6-99 ]
Sub: 2-22-00
,
134 Land Use Element - Compo Plan. - Fig, ]2A 9-]-94 ]
"Wildlife and View Corridors" Sub: 2-22-00
135 BIMC Ch.]6.22 Vegetation Management Sub: 2-22-00 7
136 Video of poles and netting impacting residential Sub: 2-22-00 ]
Street.
137 BIMC Ch.16.20 Critical Areas Sub: 2-22-00 10 ds
138 WPGCC Site Plan 10-14-99 (Rev) Sub: 2-22-00 1
Tanner Consulting Group
139 WPGCC Site Plan] 1-10-99 (Rev) Sub: 2-22-00 1
Tanner Consulting Group
]40 WPGCC Site Plan 12-23-99 (Rev) & dated 12-27-99 Sub: 2-22-00 1
]4] BIMC Ch. 18.27 (height restrictions 18.27.070) Sub: 2-22-00 2
142 Corres. to Messrs. Warren and Machen from Smith 12-27-99 2
Sub: 2-22-00
143 Corres. to Atkinson from Pirkl re: Analysis of ] -29-00 5
Proposal Sub: 2-22-00
]44 Resume - Gerald Pirkl Sub: 2-22-00 6
]45 Corres to Knoblock from Pirkl re: Driving Range Ball 2-]4-00 3
disbursement plan analysis w/attach. Sub: 2-22-00
Revised 3-5-00
EXHffiIT 'A'
]46 Corres to Smith from Merryman (Range Lan USA) 2-19-00 4
re' Driving Range Plan Evaluation and Analysis Sub: 2-22-00
147 Resume - Merryman Sub. 2-22-00 1
148 Golf Digest Article re: golf injury 6-99 4
Sub: 2-22-00
149 National injury report data (NBC Dateline) Sub: 2-22-00 19
(bound)
150 Post lntelligencer Article "Errant Mulligans can lead 1-28-00 1
to lawsuits, Sub: 2-22-00
151 Corres, to Knobloch from Krueger Ph.D in re Hawley 2-18-00 7
Creek w/attach' Resume Sub: 2-22-00
152 Corres. to Machen from Ament (WSDFW) re impact 2-2-00 2
to Bald Eagles and habitat Sub: 2-22-00
153 Corres, to Warren from Kalinowski (WSDFW) re: 7-8-99 2
review of proposal. Sub: 2-22-00
154 Corres. to Warren from Kalinowski (WSDFW) re: 8-30-99 2
Prelim. Stream Survey of Hawley Creek Sub: 2-22-00
155 Corres, to Warren from Peirce, Adolfson Assoc. re: 8-20-99 3
Prelim. Stream Survey of Hawley Creek Sub: 2-22-00
156 Corres, to Schilling from Machen re: stream 9-16-99 1
classification Sub: 2-22-00
157 Corres. to Warren from Nazareth (page 3 noted) 12-23-99 6
Sub: 2-22-00
158 Bainbridge Island Review re: Pesticides 9-18-99 1
Sub: 2-22-00
159 Complaint, Lawrence Bowman vs. WPGCC 9-1-99 8
Sub: 2-22-00
160 Corres. to Warren from Meyers, The Suquamish 6-15-99 2
Tribe. Sub: 2-22-00
161 Corres. to Hearing Examiner's Assistant from 2-16-00 3
Meyers, The Suquamish Tribe. Sub: 2-22-00
162 Bainbridge Island Review Article by Wayne Daley 1-26-00 1
Sub: 2-22-00
Revised 3-5-00
EXHffiIT 'A'
163 Bainbridge Island Review Article by Wayne Daley 1-12-00 1
Sub: 2-22-00
164 Excerpt from "Streams of Bainbridge Island" by Sub: 2-22-00 1
Gerald Elfendahl
165 Corres. to Warren from Davison, The Association of 1-28-00 1
Bainbridge Communities, Sub: 2-22-00
166 Excerpt from United States Registed Country Club Sub: 2-22-00 4
Survey
167 Written Testimony and support in re Environmental Sub: 2-22-00 11
Award criteria.
168 City of Bainbridge Island Ord. 98-35 (Amendment to Sub: 2-22-00 16
Camp. Plan) (bound)
169 Corres. to Knobloch from Michael Graham Appraisal 2-14-00 1
re: Proposal's influence on adjacent Single Family Sub: 2-22-00
Residences
170 Corres. from Ploen, High Dessert Range & Golf 1-20-00 23
Learning Center w/attachs - City of Bend, Oregon. Sub: 2-22-00 (bound)
CUP Application record re: driving range.
171 Architectural Rendering (photo) "F orecast" Golf 2-20-00 3
Range Construction Sub: 2-22-00
172 Photograph of Pole sample (sample exhibited at Sub: 2-22-00 1
hearing)
173 Sample of Netting Sub: 2-22-00 1
174 Still FramelVideo Exhibit 136 - Pole Height/lot 026 Sub: 2-22-00 1
175 As Above: Pole Height/lot 015 Sub: 2-22-00 1
176 As Above: Ball trajectory height/lot 012 Sub: 2-22-00 1
177 As Above: " " " lotOl6&Ol7 Sub: 2-22-00 1
178 As Above: " " "lot 016 & 017 Sub: 2-22-00 1
179 Ball Trajectory Profile (produced by Tanner Sub: 2-22-00 1
Consulting Group)
Revised 3-5-00
EXHIBIT' A'
180 Streams, Wetlands and Recommended Buffers: Wing Sub 2-22-00 1
Point Road/Azalea Avenue Neighborhood (The
Suquamish Tribe)
181 Hearing Memorandum of Azalea Avenue 2-22-00 26
Homeowners
182 Photos of Ravine (5) Sub:2-22-00 3
183 Written Testimony as orally presented by Mr, Sub: 2-22-00 8
Yudelson
184 Corres. from Jay lnslee Sub: 2-22-00
185 Corres, from Hough Sub: 2-22-00
186 Photograph of Ms. Lombardie's Daughter Caroline Sub: 2-22-00 I
187 Photographs of Bill Schilling in tree Sub:2-22-00 4
188 Resume: Tanner Consulting Group Sub: 2-22-00 6
189 Public Driving Range Comparisons Sub: 2-22-00 2
190 Mueller Statement PGA Pro Sub: 2-22-00
191 Corres. from Lofgren (Dept. Labor and Industries) to Sub: 2-22-00
Gilbert,
192 Bill Schillings notes re: effects on birds Sub: 2-22-00 2
193 Transport of Runoff & Nutrients from Fairway Turfs. Sub: 2-22-00 3
Pennsylvania State University.
194 "Effect of Nutrients and Pesticides......" Sub: 2-22-00 16 ds
Environmental Resources Research List. Penn State
195 WSDFW Bald Eagle Site Management Plan Sub: 2-22-00
196 Hearing Memoranda of Wing Point Golf and Sub: 2-22-00 15
Country Club
197 Overhead of proposal and ravine Sub: 2-22-00 I
198
199 Figure 4 Transportation Element "Functional Road Sub: 2-22-00. 1
Classification
Revised 3-5-00
EXHmIT 'A'